posted December 01, 2005 04:00 PM            

quote:

---

The factual basis for the stories is not known by any of us for certain...acoustic

---

The premise of the LA Times...not a right wing publication, by any means, IS that the stories WERE factual.

You calling into question the veracity of the left wing LA Times acoustic?

posted December 01, 2005 04:04 PM            

What I said is that the point of the articles being factual or not is of little consequence. You seem to think there's some way of spinning this to your advantage, but there's really a whole lot of nothing.

posted December 01, 2005 04:07 PM            

There is a mountain of evidence of the connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda acoustic and active cooperation.

There is not good evidence Saddam was connected to 9/11...unless you read the reports about the commercial aircraft parked at Salmon Pak...which was used by Iraq to train terrorists in methods of hijacking commercial aircraft....methods exactly like those used by the 9/11 terrorists.

posted December 01, 2005 04:12 PM            

You are astoundingly illogical to believe the Pulitzer is worth any more than the value of the base metals it's composed of.

posted December 01, 2005 04:51 PM            

Can you hear or read the articles that are being put out over there? Neither can I. So what difference does it make to you or I whether or not they are factual or not.

Also, if you notice I've NEVER made an issue of whether or not they're factual. That's something you came up with on your own. I still don't see what point you're trying to make.

posted December 01, 2005 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

---

They do what FoxNews does only replacing the Republican Party with our military, our government, and the new Iraqi government. Fox reports a story leaving out anything that might look bad for Republicans (unless they are aware that it is an impossible feat in which case they try to downplay the significance of the truth).

posted December 01, 2005 06:35 PM            

quote:

---

The factual basis for the stories is not known by any of us for certain...acoustic

---

Your ever changing positions make no sense. If the factual basis of the stories don't matter then....why attempt to cast doubt on what the LA Times reported...that the articles were factual

What acoustic? You must be on the spot to see the actual event. You must be present to hear what is said..or forever have doubts about what is reported?

If that's true about you, you must have nothing in which you can really believe.

posted December 01, 2005 06:42 PM            

quote:

---

they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments....acoustic

---

Hahaha I could see how this would upset you so acoustic. You want nothing more than the US to be presented in a bad light; you want stories which only reflect poorly on the United States.

posted December 01, 2005 07:26 PM            

quote:

---

I didn't say this, you did acoustic.

---

Yes, in RESPONSE to you:

quote:

---

This is an issue here Proxi because acoustic choose to post another accusation against the United States...and leave out the essential element...that the "news" stories the US is alleged to have planted were factual

---

quote:

---

If the factual basis of the stories don't matter then....why attempt to cast doubt on what the LA Times reported...that the articles were factual

---

Because you can't seem to let go of this, I reported to you exactly what is said in the LA Times article, so you can see that the statement was actually qualified.

quote:

---

Your ever changing positions make no sense.

---

MY position hasn't changed an iota. Factual or not makes absolutely no difference to me. If it said that they were out there fabricating stories, then maybe I'd have an opinion, but the way they stated it, I could care less, which is what I've said all along.

quote:

---

You must be present to hear what is said..or forever have doubts about what is reported?

---

Well, for me to care about it's viability or credibility, yes, I would have to hear it to make an assessment. Same as any other person.

quote:

---

You can't even bring yourself to accept the factual basis of the stories as reported by the LA Times but you seem to have swallowed the rest of the story...which would seem to put the US in a bad light...swallowed all that without so much as a hiccup.

---

Huh? Did you read what I wrote when the article originally hit? My opinion of it was one of being on the fence. How do you interpret that as me taking the story as putting the U.S. in a bad light?

posted December 01, 2005 07:31 PM              

let's look at it like this
only 50% is true

the universal law
now we're off balance
so let's say
only 25% true

so, is worth arguing about

what can we so do change things

and let's start
by treating each other
with respect

posted December 01, 2005 08:09 PM            

quote:

---

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

---

posted December 01, 2005 08:13 PM            

quote:

---

Having a belief the military, the government and/or the press must get the opposing view of the enemy and put their views in documents and publications is one of the most asinine concepts anyone has ever put forth.

---

Yeah, except that I didn't put that opinion forward.

posted December 01, 2005 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

Here's what the LA Times article states at this moment:...acoustic

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

---

If this isn't a concept you endorse, there was no reason to single this paragraph out from the article and post it, then going further and bolding the phrase you wanted to highlight.

posted December 02, 2005 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

If you feel, "the articles are basically factual," perhaps you should write Rumsfeld, and try to prevent the Pentagon from looking into it.

---

quote:

---

I missed this little post.
Actually, I didn't make an accusation. The article did/does.

The factual basis for the stories is not known by any of us for certain, so it really doesn't matter one way or the other in any practical terms. What should perhaps concern you, Jwhop, is that the White House, a.k.a. the Administration, is concerned about these reports.

---

quote:

---

No. Only you would take that from what I said.

What I said is that the point of the articles being factual or not is of little consequence. You seem to think there's some way of spinning this to your advantage, but there's really a whole lot of nothing.

I also said, that if you want to discuss something maybe you should decide whether you're for or against this action. Is it good or bad? Why are the White House and Pentagon concerned about it? What will be the consequence of these actions particularly now that they've been exposed?

---

quote:

---

That's so patently backwards it's ridiculous.

Can you hear or read the articles that are being put out over there? Neither can I. So what difference does it make to you or I whether or not they are factual or not.

Also, if you notice I've NEVER made an issue of whether or not they're factual. That's something you came up with on your own. I still don't see what point you're trying to make.

Furthermore, if you want to prove you're interested in the 'truth' maybe you should drop the propaganda machines and start using credible sources.

---

quote:

---

Because you can't seem to let go of this, I reported to you exactly what is said in the LA Times article, so you can see that the statement was actually qualified.

MY position hasn't changed an iota. Factual or not makes absolutely no difference to me. If it said that they were out there fabricating stories, then maybe I'd have an opinion, but the way they stated it, I could care less, which is what I've said all along.

Well, for me to care about it's viability or credibility, yes, I would have to hear it to make an assessment. Same as any other person.

---

posted December 04, 2005 08:44 PM            

President Bush is disturbed by the U.S. military's practice of paying Iraqi papers to run articles emphasizing positive developments in the country and will end the program if it violates the principles of a free media, a senior aide said Sunday.

"He's very troubled by it" and has asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to look into the pay-to-print program, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"If it is inconsistent with the policy guidance it will be shut down," Hadley said on ABC's "This Week."

Hadley acknowledged there is a need to counter the disinformation campaigns of U.S. enemies in Iraq. "But the message we need to get out has to be truth and facts," Hadley told "Fox News Sunday."

Even if the stories are factual, "it's got to be done in a way that reinforces a free media, not undermines it," Hadley said.

Military officials on Friday detailed and generally defended the program under which a Washington-based contractor was authorized to pay Iraqi papers to run articles, compiled by coalition forces. The stories often praise the activities of U.S. and Iraqi forces, denounce terrorism and promote reconstruction efforts.

The Lincoln Group has a contract for $6 million to perform public relations and advertising work in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the legality and policy ramifications of the program were unclear. "Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do," he said.

But lawmakers and Pentagon officials also offered defense of the program, which U.S. military officials in Iraq described as "a function of buying advertising and opinion-editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said he did not know if that was standard procedure in Iraq. But, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press," if the stories were accurate, "if that's the way to get stories, I'm not terribly offended by it."

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee visited the Pentagon on Friday to discuss the information campaign. Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., said the practice of planting favorable stories without disclosing the source was wrong, but "the disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_news_stories